I don't post here every day, but I do often enough that you to page through the archives and check my conservative bonafides. I am staunchly pro-life, pro-gun (own an AK-47, Glock .45 and a Ruger 9mm), anti-climate religion, anti-gay marriage, anti-VAT, and anti-Obamacare. I listen to Rush occasionally. I listen to John Gibson in the afternoons, Levin every night. I live in reddish-purple Virginia, in Jim Moron's district, specifically. I know a lot of Obama voters - some of them leftist automatons, some of them squishy Independents.

The conventional wisdom among conservatives on here and other blogs is to always elect the most conservative candidate - period. They say the reason we lost in 2008 was because we ran McLame on the top of the ticket, and had we run a real conservative, we would have won. This theory is mostly false.

The reason we lost in 2008 was because all the organs of the democrat machine were able to define McLame as a clueless establishment geezer and Palin as a ditz. Neither of them were able to shake these caricatures and often times made them worse. Obama had enough baggage with his associations with terrorists and racist ministers that the election was competitive until the bottom fell out of the economy. They were then able to successfully (however falsely) pin it on Republicans, and it carried them to victory.

The fact of the matter is, if you can define yourself and your opponent, you will win the race. We beat Kerry in 2004 with devastating video of him lying about Vietnam, betraying his unit and flip-flopping on his record. Rove further rallied the base with worries about proliferation of gay marriage, and Bush got more votes than any other president in history. While you may think we should go back to the gay marriage well, I would submit to you that with 9-17% unemployment or underemployment and the FACT public opinion has softened on gay marriage, this is not the trump card it once was. In fact, social issues specifically will not carry a candidate from either party to a presidential victory - especially in this economic climate.

I look at Obama, presiding over the worst economy, job market and housing market in a generation, and he somehow has around a 50% approval rating. This is as stupefying as it is disappointing. Then, I look at the field of candidates and really start to think this is going to be an uphill slog. Obama is damaged but still has the upper hand with his incumbency. Those of you pointing me to last year's elections, I would refer you to NV, CO, DE, CA, CT, and WA (the last 4 for reasons you might not expect).

Case study 1: Nevada. If you think beating Obama is going to be a slam dunk, here you have the most despised member of the senate pulling out a last minute victory with the sheer brute force of his bank and ground game. In fairness, I'm not sure Sue Lowden would have won, but I am certain it would have been closer. Angle or Lowden would have received the similar tons of money from groups looking to unseat Reid, but Sharron was not a polished candidate and stuck her foot in her mouth too many times ("2nd amendment solutions", etc.).

Case study 2: Colorado. Here we have another purple state with the wind at our backs and blew it. Buck is a smart guy and articulate, but he walked right into the gay marriage trap down the stretch, comparing homosexuality to alcoholism on Meet the Press. He never recovered. Even though I do think homosexuality is an identity disorder, if you're trying to get elected, shut up about it and keep hammering away on fiscal issues. You can get away with that in Alabama - not Colorado.

Case study 3: Delaware. I hate Castle, so this was the least significant for me. He was basically the 2010 version of Dede Scozzafava and glad we don't have to defend him in the senate. However, it hurt us from the standpoint in that it allowed the DSCC to mostly ignore the race, where Castle would have forced them to spend more money there (a point I'll get back to a lot).

Case study 4: California and Connecticut. Carly was the best we could have ever done there and had a lot of money. Linda may not have been the best candidate in CT, but she is also extremely wealthy. Both of them pulled a LOT of DSCC resources away from other states and really helped us, even in defeat (stop me if you see a pattern here).

Case study 5: Washington. Dino isn't uber wealthy like the last 2, but he is an extremely polished, solid candidate and forced the DSCC to spend a lot of money there.

Here's the thing: believe me if I tell you I could bring back Barry Goldwater from the dead and install him in the White House without having to worry about losing an election, I would. But I recognize we cannot win without a plurality of Independent squishes. This is just a fact. It is also a fact that conservatism will suffer more with the re-election of Obama than any Republican in the mix right now. We can win with 100% orthodox conservatives, but they MUST be able to connect with independents in a way so that they feel comfortable voting for them, even if the sources of their comfort are for superficial reasons. I felt like Pence could have been that guy, but he's running for IN governor. There's really no one else like him left right now.

If I were Obama, of the names being mentioned, I would fear Daniels the most. How could they label him? He's a competent, accomplished, books-balancing, budget-slashing, Harley riding, ivy league educated state executive. They would be unable to easily label him a racist (hello Mississippi Barbour), an idiot (hello Palin), a hypocrite (hello Romneycare), or a Bible beater (hello Huckabee). What are they going to attack him for - his height? Having once worked for Bush? If that's the worst he's got in the way of baggage, he's in good shape. If he put Christie on the ticket with him (a true RINO to be sure, but a star with gravitas nonetheless), Obama would have to go and dump money into NEW JERSEY. The midwest would be an electoral killing field from PA to WI. There would only be a few states Obama wouldn't have to defend. I think we'd have a similar shot with T-Paw, but he hasn't really impressed me in one-on-one interviews.

Back to the social issues, all I want out of our next president is to reinstate the Mexico City Policy and to elevate as many Scalias to the bench as possible - bonus if he can defund Planned Parenthood. Ginsburg is probably going to expire pretty soon, and Kennedy is wanting to step down soon. Do you want to risk their seats with a candidate likely to lose?

I'd be interested to hear your feedback of why you think I'm right or why you think I'm wrong. I'm on your team, so let's keep it civil.

The reason we lost in 2008 was because all the organs of the democrat machine were able to define McLame as a clueless establishment geezer....

He did that all by himself. He started to get some traction with the Rev. Wright coverage and Obama's "spread the wealth around" gaffe. The nomination of Palin brought enthusiasm. He totally killed it all when he said Obama was a good man and we didn't have to fear him as president.

“Carly was the best we could have ever done there and had a lot of money”

No she wasn’t. She had no record to encourage conservatives to support her. She suffered from having to run along with the hideous opportunist Meg. And there are plenty of Hewlett Packard alumni in California who despise her. Carly was just one more in a long series of colorless moderates that the GOP decides to run for state office, only to lose.

7
posted on 02/16/2011 8:57:37 PM PST
by Pelham
(Off With Their Heads- a Religion of Peace thought for today)

He said he was going to retire sometime after 2012, according to one of his friends. Google it and you’ll find the articles. I take that to mean he wasn’t thrilled with Obama’s appointments, but who’s to say he wouldn’t let Obama appoint his successor if the replacement has to go through a Republican majority senate?

8
posted on 02/16/2011 8:57:50 PM PST
by cartervt2k
(...and they cling to their abortions and their global warming religion)

By the way, you didn't mention DeMint. I happen to believe he will get into the race, and he is my favorite (potential) candidate at this early juncture.

One more question: Why do you believe the scumbags have successfully caricatured Palin as "an idiot"? As far as I can tell, the scumbag Democrats and their newsrooms have succeeded only in convincing themselves that Palin is an idiot, and they are smugly patting themselves on the back for how clever they are. I believe that normal America will embrace Palin once she begins to campaign in earnest.

He’s solid down the line on all. On taxes, he’s raised some taxes but lowered others. They have the lowest property taxes in the country - cappped at 1%. He once entertained the idea of a VAT (worrying), but he wants to make taxes flatter for all. I don’t think (hope) he would give the keys to the VAT car for future democrat majorities without some constitutional safety mechanisms.

He has a very solid pro-life record, despite his truce comments (which will be like candy to independent voters, by the way). He has said he will reinstate the Mexico city policy. He is anti-cap and trade, saying he’s an “agnostic” on climate change, I think were his words.

15
posted on 02/16/2011 9:05:51 PM PST
by cartervt2k
(...and they cling to their abortions and their global warming religion)

He once entertained the idea of a VAT (worrying), but he wants to make taxes flatter for all. I dont think (hope) he would give the keys to the VAT car for future democrat majorities without some constitutional safety mechanisms.

I remember the response he gave on the VAT, I'm a little leery on trusting him, but if I recall correctly, he denied saying he actually endorsed a VAT, and was supportive of a flat tax, and that what he did was explain what a VAT was, and he claimed that it was twisted on him, but I don't know how true his claims were.

1. DE, CA, CT, and WA are liberal states....you don’t need those states to beat Obama, so what’s the point on how those loses in 2010 in liberal states means Obama is almost unstoppable?

2. some Republican strategist have pinpointed concern about his lack of fire in the belly or the desire for the rigors of hard campaigning....Obama will have his billions, the MSM in his back pocket, the Unions...etc. We need someone who will go toe to toe with Obama and not back down and will be the captain that is willing to “Give them Hell, Harry”......To beat Obama one has to go for the jugular not play “smart and cute”...so their is a concern on that part.

Daniels is the best governor that I have ever seen (I am very old) he tells it like it is, pulls no punches, and gets the job done...is it painless?? nope... but it is necessary Indiana is in MUCH better shape than any other midwestern state by far....he is a fiscal genius, conservative as far as I'm concened, pro-life, aware of the pitfalls in Washington, don't think he has any skeletons in the closet, well spoken (no tele-prompters needed)and intelligent

I like DeMint. I think he’s a much better communicator than Palin, and so I like his chances in a general better than hers. But, I think he would lose too. He’s made some controversial remarks about gays and Christianity which would hurt him with the necessary independent vote. “Extreme” would be the meme du jour on the nightly news, even though their president is a marxist.

RE: Palin. I got to be honest - I LOVE her, and she would be a monumental upgrade to Obama, but she would lose big in an election to him. She is on the right side of every issue and has great instincts. I do not think she’s an idiot, but I don’t think she’s a rhodes scholar either. If you don’t know your crap backwards and forwards on every facet of government and foreign policy and you run for president - especially as a conservative woman, they hyenas in the media will feast on you, a la Katie Couric.

26
posted on 02/16/2011 9:23:33 PM PST
by cartervt2k
(...and they cling to their abortions and their global warming religion)

I don’t think he’s Ronald Reagan (Presidents like that are literally once in a generation) BUT he might be the right man for these particular times when the N0.1 issue is our crushing national debt. His CPAC speech framed it better than any other potential candidate...so far anyway.

Bush, despite his faults on other issues, was the right man to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 and the war on terror in my opinion.

1. I mentioned those states to illustrate the necessity of draining democrat resources. It will be imperative that we force Obama to spread out his money in as many places as possible.

2. Daniels will have a LOT of money behind him. He won’t be playing with any of this public financing crapola, and the business community will be solidly behind him. People are tired of the grandstanding pretender and ready for the boring, tried and true manager, IMHO.

3. Look at his record - he is not as moderate as you think.

28
posted on 02/16/2011 9:31:21 PM PST
by cartervt2k
(...and they cling to their abortions and their global warming religion)

Daniels is the only Guy I know that makes George Will seem charismatic in comparison. He bores the hell out of me,even though his speeches are mostly wonderfully Conservative, I drift off like he is robotic.

His wife left him,ran off with someone else and came back,maybe he put her to sleep also. He is a numbers guy,and does not draw on any kind of emotion. It is sad, I thought he was a good candidate until I watched and listened more closely. I still think he could be second on the Palin ticket,she has enough personality for both,and then some. He is great on the budget and all matters financial way above most other candidates,but there it ends.

29
posted on 02/16/2011 9:34:39 PM PST
by samantha
(Sarah has our back,and we sure have hers.. America the Beautiful...)

I hate to beat a dead horse, but I don’t see any way Palin can resuscitate her numbers with critical independent voters. I love her and will support her if she’s the nominee, but I just don’t see how she wins.

If this election turns into a charisma/popularity contest, we lose no matter who we pick. We win by picking the exact opposite of Obama - boring but competent and effective.

34
posted on 02/16/2011 9:44:43 PM PST
by cartervt2k
(...and they cling to their abortions and their global warming religion)

Let’s start with your case studies—
1- Nevada voters chose Nevada over their country. They could not afford to throw away Reid’s seniority and clout in the Senate in exchange for a newbie. His opponent had little effect on the outcome.

2- Bad candidates can’t win elections. The Republican candidate for Governor in CO was a disaster and Buck was only somewhat better.

3- O’Donnell might have had a chance to win that election if establishment Republicans hadn’t been sore losers and refused to support her. They sounded like little kids. “Gov. Palin came in here and stole our candy and we’re not gonna play anymore”.

4- You are probably correct about CA and CT. I will say that I was not a great fan of Carly although I supported her in the general election. I don’t think she had the energy to effectively campaign against Boxer. If Chuck DeVore had been elected to the Senate,he would be among the five or six smartest in the body. His lack of fund raising ability kept him out.

5- Rossi is a repeated loser in WA. A confident conservative may have had a chance to win that seat.

What you are suggesting is that for a Republican to win, they must go to where the independents are. This is not what happened in 2010. In 2010, led by Gov. Palin and the TEA party, independents came to where we are. It is almost impossible to know where independents are because they lack core beliefs held by liberals and conservatives. Democrats win them over by lying and submerging them with media propaganda. The TEA party effort opened their eyes and many saw the truth about the liberal agenda. That truth still exists and will carry over to 2012 because the job was only half done in 2010. It will carry over because Obama is still intent on implementing Obamacare which they oppose. It will carry over because he still wants to bankrupt this country. If you want to lose those independents, try nominating a squishy Republican who is afraid of the social issues and who is afraid to call Obama out on his policies.

Yes, they will call Palin an idiot, but they would call Daniels an idiot too because name calling is what they do. When the campaign starts, all of those myths will evaporate in the face of truth and reality.

In 2008, many white voters wanted to see the first black President get elected. Of course black voters did also. Now, that ship has sailed. In 2012, the same effect will occur among women voters to see the first woman elected President. You can cite all the polls showing Palin doing poorly among women and independents but they tell us nothing because those polled are still thinking Palin is Tina Fey. When voters get to see the real Palin campaigning, those myths will fall like popped balloons. If you remember back to 2008, the selection Of Gov. Palin actually put McCain in the lead until the economy blew up (or was blown up) and McCain fumbled his response.

Gov. Mitch Daniels has no charisma. He comes off as a nice man ala Calvin Coolidge. Against Obama, he would be blown off the stage while women fainted on cue for Obama. Governor Palin dominates a stage. Obama will be upstaged and stuttering like a fool and when she asks him why he is intentionally trying to destroy the country he was elected to lead, I want to hear his attempts to answer and so do a lot of independents.

The fact of the matter is, if you can define yourself and your opponent, you will win the race. We beat Kerry in 2004 with devastating video of him lying about Vietnam, betraying his unit and flip-flopping on his record. Rove further rallied the base with worries about proliferation of gay marriage, and Bush got more votes than any other president in history. While you may think we should go back to the gay marriage well, I would submit to you that with 9-17% unemployment or underemployment and the FACT public opinion has softened on gay marriage, this is not the trump card it once was. In fact, social issues specifically will not carry a candidate from either party to a presidential victory - especially in this economic climate.

I look at Obama, presiding over the worst economy, job market and housing market in a generation, and he somehow has around a 50% approval rating. This is as stupefying as it is disappointing. Then, I look at the field of candidates and really start to think this is going to be an uphill slog. Obama is damaged but still has the upper hand with his incumbency. Those of you pointing me to last year’s elections, I would refer you to NV, CO, DE, CA, CT, and WA (the last 4 for reasons you might not expect).

Case study 1: Nevada. If you think beating Obama is going to be a slam dunk, here you have the most despised member of the senate pulling out a last minute victory with the sheer brute force of his bank and ground game. In fairness, I’m not sure Sue Lowden would have won, but I am certain it would have been closer. Angle or Lowden would have received the similar tons of money from groups looking to unseat Reid, but Sharron was not a polished candidate and stuck her foot in her mouth too many times (”2nd amendment solutions”, etc.).

Case study 2: Colorado. Here we have another purple state with the wind at our backs and blew it. Buck is a smart guy and articulate, but he walked right into the gay marriage trap down the stretch, comparing homosexuality to alcoholism on Meet the Press. He never recovered. Even though I do think homosexuality is an identity disorder, if you’re trying to get elected, shut up about it and keep hammering away on fiscal issues. You can get away with that in Alabama - not Colorado.

Case study 3: Delaware. I hate Castle, so this was the least significant for me. He was basically the 2010 version of Dede Scozzafava and glad we don’t have to defend him in the senate. However, it hurt us from the standpoint in that it allowed the DSCC to mostly ignore the race, where Castle would have forced them to spend more money there (a point I’ll get back to a lot).

Case study 4: California and Connecticut. Carly was the best we could have ever done there and had a lot of money. Linda may not have been the best candidate in CT, but she is also extremely wealthy. Both of them pulled a LOT of DSCC resources away from other states and really helped us, even in defeat (stop me if you see a pattern here).

Case study 5: Washington. Dino isn’t uber wealthy like the last 2, but he is an extremely polished, solid candidate and forced the DSCC to spend a lot of money there.

Here’s the thing: believe me if I tell you I could bring back Barry Goldwater from the dead and install him in the White House without having to worry about losing an election, I would. But I recognize we cannot win without a plurality of Independent squishes. This is just a fact. It is also a fact that conservatism will suffer more with the re-election of Obama than any Republican in the mix right now. We can win with 100% orthodox conservatives, but they MUST be able to connect with independents in a way so that they feel comfortable voting for them, even if the sources of their comfort are for superficial reasons. I felt like Pence could have been that guy, but he’s running for IN governor. There’s really no one else like him left right now.

If I were Obama, of the names being mentioned, I would fear Daniels the most. How could they label him? He’s a competent, accomplished, books-balancing, budget-slashing, Harley riding, ivy league educated state executive. They would be unable to easily label him a racist (hello Mississippi Barbour), an idiot (hello Palin), a hypocrite (hello Romneycare), or a Bible beater (hello Huckabee). What are they going to attack him for - his height? Having once worked for Bush? If that’s the worst he’s got in the way of baggage, he’s in good shape. If he put Christie on the ticket with him (a true RINO to be sure, but a star with gravitas nonetheless), Obama would have to go and dump money into NEW JERSEY. The midwest would be an electoral killing field from PA to WI. There would only be a few states Obama wouldn’t have to defend. I think we’d have a similar shot with T-Paw, but he hasn’t really impressed me in one-on-one interviews.

Back to the social issues, all I want out of our next president is to reinstate the Mexico City Policy and to elevate as many Scalias to the bench as possible - bonus if he can defund Planned Parenthood. Ginsburg is probably going to expire pretty soon, and Kennedy is wanting to step down soon. Do you want to risk their seats with a candidate likely to lose?

1) Your choice of states for case study don’t make sense. These states are nowhere near swings states and Senate races are far different than for the POTUS.

2) McCain IS an establishment geezer. He also had the anchor of Bush fatigue and a miserable campaign. He shut the dam thing down during the financial crisis for crying out loud! He also refused to go after Obummer on his Commie background (See Mark McKinnon). He did not define himself as a Conservative. He ran as a moderate.

3)If you think the Rats won’t be able to label Daniels, you are crazy. Just because the guy rides a Harley does not make him edgy. His CPAC speech whined about right wing radio for crying out loud. His record as Gov. is spotty. He supports an INTERNET TAX and supports GREEN INITIATIVES.

Maybe you should have spent more time going though the points of how Daniels will trump Obummer issue by issue instead of somehow tying in lost Senate races.

Remember, the electoral landscape has totally shifted on Obummer because of the ‘10 Landslide. States he relied on have turned solid red overnight. PA, OH, VA ect. He will not have the advantage this time and there does not seem the need to run another Moderate looking candidate. Maybe Daniels will change my impression of him in the debates.

37
posted on 02/16/2011 9:51:51 PM PST
by Lazlo in PA
(Now living in a newly minted Red State.)

2. Daniels will have a LOT of money behind him. He wont be playing with any of this public financing crapola, and the business community will be solidly behind him. People are tired of the grandstanding pretender and ready for the boring, tried and true manager, IMHO

You still didn't answer the concern....You have to have fire with fire, Will Mitch fight back against the media slurs and lies? They said that Mitch run as Governor against his opponent was non-confrontation and that he hates the personal invasion of his family life. Will Mitch give it his all? that's why we have an primary, to test these candidates and all of these hypotheticals about who can't win or who can win is silly, lets wait a see in the primary season. BTW Im saying is that if Obama is too much to over come (I don't personally believe that), I would rather have someone go down with the ship fighting to the end than a cool, collected guy demurring about being around smart people.

Why do you believe the scumbags have successfully caricatured Palin as "an idiot"? As far as I can tell, the scumbag Democrats and their newsrooms have succeeded only in convincing themselves that Palin is an idiot, and they are smugly patting themselves on the back for how clever they are. I believe that normal America will embrace Palin once she begins to campaign in earnest. Do you think Palin is an idiot?

I absolutely don't believe Palin is an idiot. I think she's an extraordinarily smart and competent woman, and I was a fan before she was chosen to be the vp candidate. I admire her greatly. However,

1. Yes, I do agree with the original poster than the Left has succeeded in making most Americans believe she's an idiot. Wherever I go, all over the US, whoever I talk to in any sociocultural or educational group, I hear the same thing: people who are not liberals like her but think she's a lightweight, an airhead. Even if they can't point to something specific she said that they don't like, they consider her young, perky, cute. Not a person with gravitas. Not someone who can face down Putin and Hu, Kim and the Muslim Brotherhood.

2. I'm going to get crucified for this because on this forum apparently our fellow Freepers won't allow us to say anything negative about Sarah, but here goes anyway: In 2008 Ann Coulter said that Sarah should go back to Alaska, finish her term, and spend the next several years reading Constitutional law and history, and traveling. This was very good advice. People who are really sharp know what they don't know, and try to fill the gaps. I wish I could see Sarah studying.

3. I don't think a woman will impress the Chinese or make the Muslims quake in their sandals. They're misogynists. That's not my fault or Sarah's; it's just a statement of fact. They won't fear her, no matter how many nukes she commands.

caveats would be an understatement - i hear him give it to Daniels with both barrels the other night. Still, I don’t think being bush’s OMB is that big a problem. Bush signed his own budgets, Daniels signed his own budgets in IN.

40
posted on 02/16/2011 9:54:02 PM PST
by cartervt2k
(...and they cling to their abortions and their global warming religion)

Perhaps you don't understand the MO of the democrat/media complex yet.

They will label and savage any candidate for president with an (R) behind their name.

Daniels will be no different, and he has never faced that kind of thing so we don't know how he will handle it. Besides the lambasting he will take like any of the others, he has a lot of weaknesses as a candidate, as many or more than the rest that might become candidates.

If he wins the nomination I'll get behind him, but right now he's nothing for Obama to fear at all.

43
posted on 02/16/2011 9:57:59 PM PST
by Lakeshark
(Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)

The MSM has been able to define some of the more
notable conservatives such as Palin and Newt in
the eyes of the un-informed masses. They will, of
course, attempt to paint a negative picture of whomever
wins the GOP nomination. That is one of the reasons
I am interested in Daniels or someone like him. There
is an opportunity, however slight, for Daniels to
define himself before the cretins focus in on him.
But, if he doesn’t have the ‘fire in his belly’ it
won’t matter.

Doesn’t any body read anymore. I strongly encourage you all to read Daniels speech at CPAC. This guy is VERY smart. You all want a Justin Beiber type popularity contest. The only one that comes close is Palin. I really like her, but . . .

I’ll vote for brains and integrity. This guy has a backbone, and won’t stand around and listen to the administrations nonsense. He’s got a plan. He put Indiana in the black, and he’s not afraid to take on the sacred cows of politics.

Sorry, but the moment he said he wanted a truce on social issues he became another rino in my eyes. I’m sure he is great fiscally speaking, but if he doesn’t champion all aspects of what I consider conservatism, then he’ll never get my vote.

I mean, if that’s the case, I might as well vote for Romney. No, sounds to me like he doesn’t want to fight for social issues in the public arena at the presidential level. Not exactly a good sign.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.